I don’t think there’s a big difference between using the speakerphone than talking to someone next to you.

What made you think they shouldn’t?

I’m pointing to the fickle nature on how we determine what age people should be allowed to do different things, which is particularly ironic in Germany.

I also agree that social media have a lot of risks, but 16 for social media seems very old compared to what we should do about it.

Science is a bad example. It’s a field where our understanding continues to develop. Whether something has happened or not, like the Holocaust, or Russia invading Ukraine, are completely different.

‘Vaccines works’ can mean a lot of things, different types of vaccines, for different issues, and different side effects, and how people personally weigh side effects with the benefit.

That said, you don’t stop trying to do the right thing because it might backfire, because not doing anything at all will probably baby make things worse.

I’m curious about these arguments that people put forward. Pretending to be some kind of ‘absolutist’. Are you really so deluded that you think these efforts to address misinformation and extremism might somehow be used by bad faith actor? Like ‘we shouldn’t do this, what if the bad guys are in charge?’. We all know that when they’re in power they wouldn’t care about the laws or would just make their own up!

Or are you batting for the fascists and autocrats and want to give them more power faster?

In a country were people believe that practice of safe sex can be taught by 14, I can’t fathom why they think responsible Internet practice can’t be taught earlier than 16.

EDIT: Noticed a typo. They always seem to be in bad places… Changed to why they think responsible Internet practice CAN’T be taught until 16, that there are commonly considered more serious things set at a you get age.

I really really hope you’re wrong.

I don’t mind working with the US even with Trump leading, but the EU is clearly a natural partner. They’re right at our doorstep.

There is a difference between authoritarianism and having laws to protect your citizens. Authoritarians have laws to protect the regime, not the citizens.

No one is being jailed for being a Nazi when you say you have issues with immigration policies, nor are people being jailed for being a communist for saying they want socialized healthcare.

You have to draw the line somewhere and say that something is dangerous and illegal, and I think saying you support Nazis and want to do Nazi stuff is a pretty good line.

I know this won’t change your mind, but even as you continue to disagree with this, I hope you can see why this isn’t a definitively wrong thing to do.

Thank you for providing an actual argument.

As we have witnessed in many places, these stuff isn’t always outlawed. In places where these views can be expressed more freely, it either escalate to the point where someone is hurt, or they gain enough popularity that it becomes almost impossible to stop. I believe that the best way to deal with the problem is to address it quickly head on when we know this is universally abhorrent.

This law seems to be explicitly in place to avoid people getting hurt. You have not provided any argument at all how it doesn’t.

Are you worried about being jailed for Nazi views? So you should be, and consider yourself lucky. I’d rather have you jailed for a month to hopefully learn your lesson that we don’t take to hatred and violence lightly, than to allow you a platform to gather support so you can hurt and kill millions.

Tolerance of intolerance is not a path to freedom. Choosing to do nothing will only mean that rights and freedoms will be destroyed. Call this the lesser of two evils if you must.

If you let intolerance fester, it will grow and take control, then it will start hurting and squeezing others. It’d be foolish to sacrifice freedom in the name of freedom.

This would be a fun bit of justice porn after seeing Trump get away with everything.

I don’t think you can pardon a civil case?

On the other hand, it might just be the first sign of the naked corruption we can expect to see more of.